Though the Star did not spell out the swear word Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau dropped in the boxing ring last week, I can’t imagine any reader could have had any doubt about what that bad word actually was.

As the Star reported Tuesday, Trudeau “dropped the f-bomb” at a charity boxing event: “I’m going to tell you, there is no experience like stepping into this ring and measuring yourself . . . Your name, your fortune, your intelligence, your beauty — none of that f---ing matters.”

Would your understanding of what Trudeau said in the ring have been any clearer if the Star had spelled out the f-word in full? I am curious to know if you believe there is now a case to be made for profanity in print, spelled out clearly without those dashes, as required by long-standing Star policy.

Are the Star’s dashes in swear words a coy and quaint standard of the past or an ongoing mark of respect for readers?

As Sheidlower, author of The F-Word, wrote in the Times: “Our society’s comfort level with offensive language and content has drastically shifted over the past few decades, but the stance of our news media has barely changed at all.

“Even when certain words are necessary to the understanding of a story, the media frequently resort to euphemisms or coy acrobatics that make stories read as if they were time capsules written decades ago, forcing us all into wink-wink-nudge-nudge territory.”

Sheidlower pointed out that some news organizations continue to obscure profane words entirely, even when they are central to the news, choosing instead to use vague words and phrases such as “an obscenity” or “a vulgarity.” I’m with him in believing that readers are not served if they have to guess at the meaning of any word or story. Journalists must communicate clearly, not obfuscate.

But Sheidlower goes further, arguing against what’s been called “censorship-by-dashes” and points out that some traditional news organizations, included the New Yorker and the Economist have adopted more liberal policies. As he tells us, “The Economist’s style guide reads: if you do use swear words, spell them out in full, without asterisks or other coynesses.”

Certainly these questions have been debated here. During the last revision of the newsroom’s journalist standards manual, some editors and reporters made a case for spelling out swear words in full when reporting the words is newsworthy. That was ultimately rejected on the grounds that the Star remains “a family newspaper.”

The Star’s current policy states that “swear words and sexually charged terms should be handled with extreme care and in consultation with a senior editor.

“Unless they are in direct quotations, they should never be used. Even in quotes, they should be used sparingly (i.e. only when the words — and the speaker — are central to the story). In publishing swear words, the Star uses short dashes following the first letter.”

Where problems arise with the Star’s current policy is in regard to the definition of “swear words.” While, I’m certainly not suggesting anyone compile a list of banned words, more clarity is required. Is the f-word the only word that requires dashes? Does the policy include profanities considered offensive to the religious? Is “ass” a swear word? Certainly the copy editor who once changed “the law is an ass” to the law is an a--” considered it as such.

That may seem ludicrous, but it indicates the confusion and inconsistency in interpreting the policy. This week, the newspaper version of the Trudeau story reported the Liberal leader had once called former environment minister Peter Kent a “piece of s--t.” Online, the s-word was spelled out fully. While I regard that as a breach of policy and style, others would argue that word is just fine.

What do you think? Is the Star’s swear word policy respectful of readers and families, overly prudish and out of date or simply confusing? We want to know so please post your views in online comments or on my new Star Facebook page.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.